The Vaughan v Lewisham Council case is well documented. If you need some guidance on how to write legal arguments there are various legal books that you can purchase. Hopefully, the documents below pertaining to the Vaughan Case Files will also be of some help.
Click on the headings to take you directly to the related witness statements, skeleton arguments and judgments
| Tribunal Case Management Discussion with Judge Salter (12 August 2010) |
| Preliminary Tribunal Hearing with Judge MacInnis (4 November 2010) |
| Preliminary Tribunal Hearing with Judge Baron (16 & 17 June 2011) |
| Tribunal Full Hearing with Judge Balogun (9 January – 1 February 2012) |
| Tribunal Cost Hearing with Judge Balogun (16 & 17 April 2012) |
| Preliminary Hearing with Judge Balogun (2 August 2012) |
| Employment Appeal Tribunal Rule 3(10) Hearing with Judge Peter Clark (25 October 2012) |
| Employment Appeal Tribunal Rule 3(10) Hearing with Judge Underhill (1 February 2013) |
| Cost Assessment Hearing at the High Court (Senior Cost Court) with Master Gordon-Saker (18 & 19 March 2013) |
| Preliminary Hearing with Judge Balogun (21 March 2013) |
| Defamation Statements of Case |
| High Court Preliminary Hearing with Mrs Justice Sharp (25 March 2013) |
| Court of Appeal Hearing with Judge Rimmer (10 May 2013) |
| High Court Preliminary Hearing with Sir David Eady (28 & 29 November 2013) |
The following is an overview of the AA Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Babcock legal cases, with links to the relevant legal documents: including statements of case, skeleton arguments, witness statements and judgments.
Tribunal Case Management Discussion with Judge Salter
I attended a Case Management Discussion (CMD) on 12 August 2010, this was presided over by Employment Judge Salter. The Respondents’ did not request that I pay a deposit in order to continue with my tribunal claim.
If a claim is weak or misconceived a Claimant is ordered to pay this by the Tribunal or the Respondent will make an application to the Tribunal for it to do so.
Judge Salter ordered me to produce a schedule of claims. It is a complex legal document which sets out the details of your claims. I was unsure why I as a layperson, I was required to do this, as I had submitted detailed Tribunal claim forms (ET1’s) which set out my specific claims. Nevertheless, with great difficulty, I managed to produce the document:
AA Vaughan’s Schedule of Claims against Babcock/part 1- This document sets out the precise nature of the claims I advanced in the Tribunal against Babcock and it’s managers and HR officers, with the details of when and where the incidents took place, and who was involved.
AA Vaughan’s Schedule of Claims against Babcock/part 2- This document was produced more than a year later, as the Tribunal had decided to deal with some of the claims at a later date, in order to manage the claims more effectively.
Back to top
Preliminary Tribunal Hearing with Judge MacInnis
AA Vaughan’s skeleton argument to add Babcock as a Respondent: 26 October 2010
AA Vaughan’s witness statement to add Babcock as a Respondent: 26 October 2010
On 4 November 201, a Pre-hearing Review was held at Croydon Tribunal. The hearing is presided over by Employment Judge MacInnis. Once again, I was not required to pay deposit order to continue with my tribunal claim.
Neither Judge MacInnis or Judge Salter concluded that any of my claims were misconceived.
In August 2010, I had been offered £10,000 to settle my claim.
At this Pre-Hearing Review, I successfully argued for a subsidiary company of Babcock PLC, (Babcock Education and Skills) to be added as Respondent to my Tribunal claims. You can read the judgment here.
After the hearing, I was offered £30,000 to settle my claim.
Back to top
Preliminary Tribunal hearing with Judge Baron
Respondents’ letter to Tribunal and I: ‘Strike-out’ application: 15 March 2011
You will note that there is no mention of the Respondents’ believing that my claims are misconceived.
Respondents’ tribunal ‘strike-out’ skeleton argument: 6 April 2011
AA Vaughan tribunal witness statement- Objection to the Respondents’ strike-out application: 6 April 2011
AA Vaughan tribunal submissions- Objection to the Respondents’ strike-out application: 6 April 2011
The Respondents’ made an application to strike out my Tribunal claims and obtain a cost order in April 2011.
This application was heard in June 2011 by Employment Judge Baron. The Respondents’ did not advance any contention that my claims were ‘misconceived’, as grounds for their application.
The Respondents’ application for costs was rejected. I believe that this is clear evidence that they did not believe that my claims were misconceived from the outset.
I presented the Tribunal with this evidence before the decision was taken to order me to pay in excess of £95,000 in costs, after costs I went on to lose my case.
Back to top
Tribunal Full Hearing with Judge Balogun
AA Vaughan Babcock background chronology: January 2012
This chronology was submitted by me to the Tribunal for the 20 day hearing which took place in January/February 2012. This chronology relates to the claims which were later dismissed by the Tribunal.
The chronology documents events which took place between September 2009 to February 2011, whilst I was employed by Babcock, when they ran Lewisham Connexions. I was offered £95,000 to settle these claims before they were dismissed.
I had refused the offer to settle the claims, which included a gagging clause and what I perceived to be an indirect threat from Lewisham Council to ruin my career.
AA Vaughan’s tribunal witness statement for the 20 day hearing in January/February 2012: 2 December 2011
AA Vaughan’s tribunal supplementary witness statement for the 20 day hearing in January/February 2012: 9 January 2012
AA Vaughan’s tribunal submissions for 20 day hearing: 1 February 2012
AA Vaughan’s tribunal supplementary submissions for 20 day hearing
You can read the Respondents skeleton arguments for the full hearing here.
On 9 January 2012, the 20 day hearing to consider my claims began at Croydon Tribunal. It was heard by Employment Judge Balogun and two lay members. I produced over 2500 pages of evidence supporting my case.
I cross-examined the Respondents’ witnesses for several days, for around 25 hours. In the Tribunal judgment, there is little or no mention of the questions I asked and the responses provided.
In my written submissions, I emphasized the fact that the Respondents’ responses during my cross-examination of them had been obstructive, equivocal and evasive. I was able to provide extensive examples of this because I was accompanied to the hearing by several individuals who took detailed notes on my behalf.
In the Tribunal judgment, there is also no mention of the content of the 4 equality form questionnaires and responses that I submitted in support of my claim. In my witness statement I analyzed and set this out over numerous pages- pointing out to the Tribunal that the Respondents’ answers to the questionnaire were obstructive, equivocal and evasive. The law states that a Tribunal should take this into account.
There is little or no mention of my 2 witness statements totally over 250 pages and my written submissions, totalling over 360 pages and citing dozens pieces of case law.
The Tribunal dismissed my claims. You can read the judgment here.
Back to top
Tribunal Cost Hearing with Judge Balogun
AA Vaughan’s tribunal witness statement- Objection to Respondents’ application for costs: 16 April 2012
AA Vaughan’s tribunal submissions- Objection to Respondents’ application for costs: 16 April 2012
The Tribunal decided to award the Defendants’ over £90,000 in costs, (on the ground that my claims were misconceived from the outset). You can read the judgment here.
However, it is important to note that in the 20 month period before my tribunal claims was finally heard by the Tribunal, the Defendants’ never took any steps during the proceedings to seek any preliminary hearings to canvass any allegation that my claims were misconceived.
They never applied to strike out my claim on this basis, nor did they request that the Tribunal make a deposit order for me to continue with my claim, (which is the normal procedure if the Tribunal or other party believes that a claim is weak or misconceived).
There was nothing to suggest that I proceeded with my Tribunal claim in the “clear knowledge” that it allegedly had no merit. This fact is supported by the Tribunal’s own judgment dismissing my claims, which stated that it had no doubt that I had a genuine belief in my allegations.
The Defendants’ alleged cost warning letter made no reference at all to the fact that it believed that my claims were weak or misconceived. The letter simply read as follows, (offering me money):
We believe that this offer is significantly in excess of any sum that you would be awarded by the Employment Tribunal, even if you were successful in your claims. This settlement offer shall remain open until 4 pm on Friday 11 November 2011 and shall then be withdrawn. If you should fail to accept this settlement offer, then we are instructed that no further settlement offers will be made. The Respondents will continue to defend your claims and it would be their intention to apply for a costs order against you at the full hearing in January 2012.
- The Defendants’ letter represented a speculative costs threat, designed to do no more than frighten me, regardless of the actual merits of my case.
- The Defendants’ made numerous settlement offers throughout the proceedings, for increased amounts; ranging from £10,000 in August 2010, £30,000 in November 2010, to £40,000 in August 2011 and then £60,000 and £95,000 in November 2011.
- The Defendants’ had applied for a cost order at the Tribunal in April 2011, which was heard in June 2011 by Judge Baron, they did not use the ‘misconceived’ allegation as grounds for their application. Their application for costs was rejected. This is clear evidence that they did not believe that my claims were misconceived from the outset.
- The Tribunal was presented with all of the above evidence before the decision was taken to make the extreme cost order against me.
Although the Tribunal concluded that my claims were misconceived from the outset, Judge Balogun did not advise me of this at any stage. I only became aware that this was her position when I received her judgment.
Judge Balogun also never reached this conclusion during the case management discussion, which she chaired herself on 9 January 2012. Nor did she reach this conclusion and advise me of this, before the main hearing itself, (after having had the opportunity to read all of the evidence during the Tribunal panel’s ‘reading time’-which lasted an entire week).
If the Tribunal really believed that my case had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset it should have warned me, but it did not.
My case was allowed to continue for nearly 2 years before finally being thrown out after a 20 day hearing.
The legal resource, ‘IDS Employment Law Brief, (the 975th June 2013 edition)’, described the Tribunal’s cost order against me as ‘unprecedented’.
The foreword of the Law Brief featured an article about my case called ‘Litigants in person-the risk of going it alone’, which focused on the way that my case was dealt with by the Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal and stated that the decision to make the order for the cost award against me had ‘raised a few eyebrows’.
Back to top
Preliminary Hearing with Judge Balogun
AA Vaughan’s Tribunal skeleton argument- Application to submit covert recordings: 23 July 2012
On 2 August 2012, a Tribunal Pre-Hearing Review and Case Management Discussion took place to consider the issue of the admissibility of the covert recordings. I did not supply the Tribunal with copies, (as I was still in the process of transcribing the 40 hours of recordings), but I explained in great detail in my skeleton arguments, which ran to over 60 pages, why my recordings were relevant.
The Respondents’ objected to my application to rely on the covert recordings and transcripts. You can read their skeleton argument here.
On 7 August 2012, Croydon Tribunal, (Judge Balogun) refused my application to submit my covert recordings and transcripts.
Judge Balogun told me that I would not be permitted to transcribe the recordings myself, but instead pay thousands of pound for it to be professionally transcribed.
Judge Balogun was aware that this would cost me somewhere in the region of £10,000 and that I could not possibly afford this because I was in receipt of benefits and had no savings. You can read the Tribunal decision here.
Back to top
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rule 3(10) Hearing with Judge Peter Clark
AA Vaughan’s Employment Appeal Tribunal Skeleton argument– Dismissed Tribunal claims: 3 September 2012
AA Vaughan’s Employment Appeal Tribunal Skeleton argument– Excluded covert recordings: 23 September 2012
AA Vaughan’s Employment Appeal Tribunal skeleton argument- Extreme cost order: 3 September 2012
On 25 October 2012, my appeal on the dismissed claims and the cost order is heard by Judge Clark during a rule 3(10) hearing. I submitted a detailed skeleton argument.
My appeal on the dismissed claims is rejected. You can read the judgment here.
My appeal on the cost order is referred for a full hearing.
Back to top
Employment Appeal Tribunal Rule 3(10) Hearing with Judge Underhill
AA Vaughan’s Employment Appeal Tribunal skeleton argument-
On the Tribunals decision to exclude her covert recordings and the extreme cost order: 16 January 2013
On 1 February 2013 the Employment Appeal Tribunal heard my appeal on the Tribunal’s refusal to allow me to submit covert recordings and the extreme costs order made against me by the Tribunal.
For some unknown reason, (which I felt was very unfair), the Employment Appeal Tribunal only allowed me to submit 6 pages of legal arguments, so I had to make the type font really small.
The Respondents’ also submitted a skeleton argument. You can read it here.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected my appeal on the issue of the covert recordings, but stated that it is troubled by the Tribunal’s decision. It recommended that the Tribunal reconsider.
You can the Employment Appeal Tribunal Judgment here.
The decision on the cost order was reserved and not handed down until 4 months later.
On 13 February 2013, I sent the Respondents and the Tribunal my covert recordings and transcripts.
Between the period of me revealing that I had the recordings and the Employment Appeal Tribunal hearing on 1 February 2013, I had made several attempts to furnish Lewisham Council with the covert recordings and transcripts, but it flatly refused to take receipt of it.
On 18 February 2013, Lewisham Council e-mailed the Tribunal in response to me sending out copies of my covert recordings. It reinforced its defence of my claims and refused to listen to the recordings or read the transcripts.
Croydon Tribunal then wrote to me in response to my application for it to reconsider its decision on the covert recordings. It refused to read my transcripts or listen to the recordings until they had been professionally transcribed.
Back to top
Preliminary Hearing with Judge Balogun
AA Vaughan’s tribunal skeleton argument- Application for the Tribunal to reconsider its decision on the covert recordings and the request for to the tribunal case to be put on hold, in order for the defamation case to proceed first: 12 March 2013
On 23 February 2013, I had also written to Croydon Tribunal, requesting a ‘stay’ of proceedings, in order to allow my defamation hearing to proceed first. The law states that the High Court, (as a more superior court), should proceed first. I submitted a skeleton argument.
On 21 March 2013, during the Pre-Hearing Review at Croydon Tribunal, took place to re-consider my application to submit covert recordings and my new application for the tribunal case to be put on hold, (a ‘stay’ of proceedings). I was accompanied by 4 individuals who witnessed the proceedings.
On the issue of the covert recordings, following the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s criticism of Judge Balogun’s decision to exclude my covert recordings, Judge Balogun did reconsider. She made the decision to allow me to adduce only 5 hours out of the original 39 hours of covert recordings as evidence.
I asked Judge Balogun what she was basing the decision to only allow me 5 hours on. In response to my question, she stated that she simply thought that this was proportionate. I highlighted the fact that it was not proportionate, because my health, career and reputation was at stake and that I had made over 90 allegations and 5 hours of recordings would not be enough to enable me to prove all of those allegations.
Sadly, this did not change her view.
I then asked Judge Balogun if she intended to report Lewisham Council in relation to my allegations of criminal conduct, (which was supported by my covert recordings and transcripts that I had sent the tribunal). Judge Balogun informed me that she had no intention of doing so and that if I was so concerned, I should report it myself.
Judge Balogun did not make a decision on my application for the tribunal case to be put on hold. In her judgment, Judge Balogun did not record her case management decisions regarding my application for a ‘stay’ and my application for the Tribunal to reconsider its decision on the covert recordings and transcripts.
- By e-mails dated 1st and 23rd April 2013, I brought it to the Tribunal’s attention that it had failed to send out the order on the Case Management Discussion which had dealt with these two matters and which I had made lengthy written and oral submission on.
- By letter dated 25 April 2013, Judge Balogun informed me that she did not intend to send out the order because I had withdrawn my claims.
| When a Pre-hearing Review and Case Management Disucssion take place on the same day, my previous experience had been that the judge will send out both the judgment and order together. Indeed this had been my experience of the process during the three years that I had been conducting my case in the Employment Tribunal, which included a previous pre-hearing Review and Case Management Discussion that Judge Balogun had previously presided over in my case, (see the hearing which took place on 2 August 2012).However, on this particular occasion theTribunal decided not to do so. |
In the Pre-hearing review judgment there not even any mention of the fact that I withdrew my claims or that the Case management Discussion even took place.
I wrote to the Tribunal and advised it that I did not believe that this demonstrated open justice.
- By response to the Tribunal’s letter, on the same date, I also advised the Tribunal that I believed that Judge Balogun should include the order with the Pre-hearing Review Judgment, and that it was my understanding that she was required to do this, (as it is an official record of the proceedings and the decisions made by the Judge at a Case Management Discussion).
- I advised the Tribunal that this should have been done, regardless of whether or not I went on to withdraw my claims.
- I had also specifically requested in my pre-hearing review written submissions that Judge Balogun address the outcome of my two applications in the pre-hearing review judgment.
- I also explained to Judge Balogun that it was clear that I would require the Order on the Case Management Discussion, particularly if the Respondents’ decided to make any further claims for costs against me.
- In the alternative I requested that the Tribunal set out the details of Judge Balogun’s decisions on the applications in the form of a letter.
- I pointed out that the failure to grant my request would result in there being no official record of what took place at the Case Management Discussion and it would also result in me being unable to defend myself, (should the Respondents’ decide to make any further application for costs in relation to my withdrawn Tribunal claims).
On 29 April 2013 the Tribunal wrote to me refusing my request!
On 27 February 2013, in order to block my application for the tribunal case to be put on hold, the Defendants’ made an application to the High Court for it to put my defamation case on hold.
Back to top
Cost Assessment Hearing at the High Court (Senior Cost Court) with Master Gordon-Saker
Ms AA Vaughan Points of Dispute for Cost Assessment of Tribunal Cost Order: 16 August 2012
On 18th and 19th March 2013, I attended the Senior Cost Court for a detailed cost assessment hearing which took place to decide how much of Babcock’s and Lewisham Council’s legal bill of £92,000 I should pay. I was accompanied by a friend who took notes.
The hearing revealed that Babcock and Lewisham Council had claimed for things that they were unable to produce evidence of doing and that they were also including dozens of items that should never have been included in the bill.
The Master stated that this made him question the integrity of the entire bill and that if he had the power to, he would tell them to re-do the entire bill.
Lewisham Council and Babcock had hired a Draftsman to prepare the bill, (who charged them £20,000 for this service).
I wrote to the Court the following day to express my grave concerns as well. The bill is so huge that we were unable to deal with it all in the allocated 2 days and I was informed by the court that I would have to return for a further 4 days of hearings, at the end of this year. This never took place because Babcock went on to petition for my bankruptcy.
Back to top
Defamation
Statements of Case
Ms AA Vaughan Particulars of Claim
Ms AA Vaughan Reply to the Defence
High Court Preliminary Hearing with Mrs Justice Sharp
AA Vaughan’s High Court skeleton argument for an interim injunction against Lewisham Council and its managers: 13 March 2013
AA Vaughan’s High Court witness statement for an interim injunction against Lewisham Council and its managers: 13 March 2013
I made an application to the High Court for an interim injunction against Lewisham Council and its managers under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and submitted my covert recordings and transcripts as evidence. This application was considered during a hearing which was presided over by Mrs Justice Sharp (who has since been promoted to the Court of Appeal).
AA Vaughan’s High Court skeleton argument – Against Lewisham Council’s application to put the defamation action on hold (‘stay’ of proceedings): 13 March 2013
AA Vaughan’s High Court witness statement- against Lewisham Council’s application to put the defamation action on hold (‘stay’ of proceedings): 13 March 2013
At the same hearing on 25 March 2013, Mrs Justice Sharp also heard the Defendants’ application to put my defamation case on hold.
I was again unrepresented and Lewisham Council brought turned up with a team of barristers and solicitors.
Lewisham Council’s Barrister, (Stuart Brittenden of Old Square) asserted that I was making serious allegations which were unsupported by evidence. Some of the evidence which they were referring to included my covert recordings and transcripts, (which the Defendants’ had persistently been refusing to listen to and read).
My application for an injunction against Lewisham Council and its managers was refused and their application to put my defamation claim on hold was granted.
Mrs Justice Sharp issued an order for me to pay £10,000 in costs to the Defendants’.
You can read Mrs Justice Sharp’s Judgment here.
- At the time that Mrs Justice Sharp put my defamation case on hold, she was aware that the Tribunal case was not due to be heard until October 2013. So I was expected to wait 7 months for the Tribunal hearing to start, instead of being allowed to vindicate my reputation, at the earliest opportunity.
- I advised Mrs Justice Sharp that I had already had to live with the damage to my reputation since August 2011 when I was suspended by Lewisham Council and subsequently dismissed in April 2012. Judge Eady was also aware of the facts involving this issue.
- My Article 6 rights entitled me to have the claim tried within a reasonable period. I had referred Mrs Justice Sharp to Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1, which was endorsed by Judge Eady J in Wakefield v Channel Four Television & Others [2005] EWHC 2410 (QB).
- I had cited paragraphs 2 and 5 and Judge Eady’s judgment in my skeleton argument which I submitted to Mrs Justice Sharp- in support of my contention that the Tribunal hearing should not be allowed to proceed first:
In As it was put by Glidewell LJ in Grovit v Doctor, 28th October 1993 (unreported), CA: “The purpose of a libel action is to enable the plaintiff to clear his name of the libel, to vindicate his character. In an action for defamation in which the plaintiff wishes to achieve this end, he will also wish the action to be heard as soon as possible.
The essence of a genuine complaint in libel is prompt action
I subsequently withdrew my Tribunal claim. I had to ‘fall on my sword’, in order to protect my defamation case, and ensure that I had some chance of clearing my name.
I e-mailed Croydon Tribunal on 26 March 2013 withdrawing all my claims, and cited issues of apparent bias and no confidence in the process.
I forwarded the e-mail to the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling and Judge Latham, (President of the Employment Tribunal Service), requesting that they investigate the Tribunals conduct, in order to ensure that this did not happen to other Claimant’s.
I never received any communication from Chris Grayling regarding this matter, despite having received an automated response from his e-mail account. Judge Latham also failed to respond to me.
I had also previously contacted Michael Gove, Nick Clegg and a whole host of other MP’s but they all declined to act. I have all my e-mails appealing for help and all their responses.
Withdrawing my Tribunal claims left me free to lift the ‘stay’ that Mrs Justice Sharp had put on my defamation case.
The ‘stay’ of proceedings was lifted by Mr Justice Moloney during a hearing at the High Court on 23 May 2013.
The Defendants’ did not argue against my application to lift the stay, but attempted to get costs for the hearing, which was refused.
The Defendants’ mentioned in their skeleton argument that Lewisham Council’s defence of my withdrawn claims had cost £350,000.
Back to top
Court of Appeal Hearing with Judge Rimmer
AA Vaughan’s Court of Appeal- Grounds of Appeal: 19 December 2012
AA Vaughan’s Court of Appeal skeleton arguments: 27 December 2012
Court of Appeal Oral Hearing Judgment (hearing adjourned): 10 May 2013
After the Employment Tribunal (Judge Balogun) dismissed my claims against Babcock and the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the decision, I had appealed to the Court of Appeal on 19 December 2012.
The oral hearing for this was held on 10 May 2013.
Examples of my grounds of appeal included the following:
- The failure to take into account the oral evidence: The Tribunal hardly made any reference at all to anything said by me and the respondents’ witnesses during cross-examination, even though I spent over 25 hours cross-examining the Respondents’ witnesses, (see AA Vaughan’s Tribunal skeleton arguments for 20 day hearing– at paragraphs 344 – 573);
- The failure by the Tribunal to make any reference to the 5 questionnaires and 5 responses I submitted. It was obliged to take these into account.
- The failure to make inferences from the failure of the individual respondents’- Marcus Watson and Alexander Khan to attend and give evidence, even though the Respondents’ had indicated that they would be calling them as witnesses: In Lynch v Ministry of Defence[1983] NI 216 it was held that if a party to proceedings failed to call a witness who might have been expected to be called and whose evidence might have been available to the Court or Tribunal, then the Tribunal is entitled to show an inference of discrimination;
- Applying the burden of proof wrongly or not applying it at all: TheTribunal failed to take into consideration the inconsistencies, inaccuracies and contradictions between the respondents’ witness statements and oral evidence, the pleadings, written correspondence and questionnaire responses and the Respondents’ alleged perjured evidence;
- My supporting evidence: The Tribunal failed to consider and add adequate weight to my supporting evidence, (hundreds of pages dated January – February 2011) and my supplementary witness statements and oral evidence, for the purposes of determining whether it shed any light on my claims. The Respondents’ removed this evidence from the trial bundle shortly before the hearing and refused to put it back in, I had to appeal the decision at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in on 5 January 2012 and they were ordered to put it back into the bundle. This was crucial evidence, which is why I believe that the Respondents’ removed it.
Judge Rimmer adjourned my appeal and set a date for a full hearing, which was to be held on October 2013.
I withdrew my Court of Appeal claim in July 2013, after being unable to cope with preparations for that case and my on-going High Court defamation case.
Back to top
High Court Preliminary Hearing with Sir David Eady
AA Vaughan’s High Court skeleton argument- Against the Defendants’ application for costs, an extended civil restraint order against and the ‘striking out’ of her claim: 14 November 2013
AA Vaughan’s High Court witness statement- Against the Defendants’ application for costs, an extended civil restraint order against and the ‘striking out’ of her claim: 14 November 2013
AA Vaughan’s High Court skeleton argument- In support of her request for contempt of court proceedings to be brought against the Defendants’: 14 November 2013
AA Vaughan’s High Court witness statement argument- In support of her request for contempt of court proceedings to be brought against the Defendants’: 14 November 2013
On 28 and 29 November 2013, I attended a two-day hearing at the High Court, to ensure that I had the opportunity to vindicate my reputation.
I made compelling oral arguments and I also played some of the recordings, (which is not mentioned in Judge Eady’s judgment, and which Lewisham Council had objected to me playing).
Several people accompany me to the hearing and take notes on my behalf.
Lewisham Council and their managers Barrister (William Bennett from 5rb), submitted a skeleton argument. You can read it here.
The Defendants’ failed to get a civil restraint order against me, but my claim was struck out just 2 weeks later by Judge Eady.
You can read the judgment here.
Judge Eady stated the following, (at paragraph 33 of his judgment striking out my claim):
…it would hardly be possible to rule in relation to the pleaded case in malice that it is bound to fail.
You can read more details about his decision on the ‘Vaughan v Lewisham Council Legal Arguments’ and ‘Vaughan v Lewisham Council Witness Statements’ sections.
Judge Eady is the former leading Libel Judge in the country, who would normally deal with celebrity cases, involving Claimants like Madonna, George Galloway, Elton John, Tiger Woods, Ryan Giggs, Max Mosley, Marco Pierre White and Sienna Miller, to name a few).
Judge Eady had retired in March 2013.
Back to top